* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060416 23:08]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]: > >> 2.1 Multiple advocates > >> ---------------------- > >> > >> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about > >> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr, > >> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective > >> advocates no to advocate too fast. > > Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he > > needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as > > advocate anymore. > > It sounds like a good idea, but has many drawbacks: > * We have no clear guidelines for advocates. This should be improved, > I'll probably work on that in the next few weeks. > * We have no process that allows us to take the right to advocate > people from DDs. Should I alone decide that? The nm-committee? > Someone else? Do we need to document it in public? Wouldn't that lead > to endless flamewars like we've seen with the expulsion process?
Both of this are not "hard" reasons why not, but just tell why not now. I agree on them, but - as you said, this should be worked on. > * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back? Well, basically like always - if there is a *very* good reason to believe it will work better in future, yes. But mostly, if one is out, he is quite out (unless the ban is for a certain time, like "no more advocations in the next half year"). > * After some time people will ask why only some people are allowed to > advocate, while others can't. All people involved are DDs, who are > supposed to be trustworthy. Why should I trust someone to sponsor > properly if I don't trust his advocation messages? The second is of course a good question. Basically, if we notice someone fails the guidelines (which don't exist right now, see above) in a serious way more than once, one should really consider whether to trust that someone enough for giving him basically root access on all machines running Debian. > >> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in > >> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to > >> advocate you, something is foul anyway. > > Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :) > > I know that the same two people who wanted to sponsor me would have > sponsored you, so I don't see the problem, Andi :) That was after I started IRC. As long as one doesn't IRC, it's hard to get advocates. Afterwards, it's easy. But I think that even people who don't IRC should get the chance to become DD. > > >> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak > >> about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure. > >> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If > >> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these* > >> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their > >> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are > >> added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become > >> quite much work for the DAM. > > The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally > > consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting - > > but well, one might disagree with that. > I think only "full" DDs should get voting rights (yes, this contradicts > what aj proposed in his blog). This is already settled by the constitution: voting rights are by definition exactly with the DDs. The question is just: When do we consider people to be DDs? This is not really defined, and we could make the gates more open (which I would prefer), but also close them even more. In the end, there is no correct answer, but just different preferences. Both directions are not "wrong" in a strictly technical sense. > ... and for flames. Sorry, like I was writing in another mail in this > thread: The appeal of clear rules is that people can't argue with > them. That lower reduce the frustration level quite a bit. I disagree with that. Exceptions are something that are no rules. And I think we really need to be able to say "we make exceptions as we see fit". This was always my approach in Debian and it has worked well. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]